E 

99 


Is 


5 


BANCROFT 
LIBRARY 

•o 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


(No.  119 — Second  Series — 3500] 


j  INDIAN  RIGHTS  ASSOCIATION, 
995  DREXEL  BUILDING, 
PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

May  18,  1920. 


THREATENED  EXPLOITATION  OF 
PIMA  INDIANS 

The  Indian  Rights  Association  is  vigorously  supporting  the 
Pima  Indians  in  protesting  against  the  threatened  leasing  of 
50,000  acres  of  their  irrigable  lands  on  the  Gila  River  Reservation 
in  Arizona,  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  to  outside  parties 
without  their  knowledge  or  consent  and  against  their  wishes. 

It  transpires  that  the  Acting  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs 
entered  into  an  agreement  with  one  W.  R.  Elliot,  of  Phoenix, 
Arizona,  upon  November  22,  1919,  which  was  approved  the  same 
day  on  behalf  of  Hon.  Franklin  K.  Lane,  then  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  by  S.  G.  Hopkins,  Assistant  Secretary,  by  the  term  of 
which,  among  other  things,  Elliot  or  his  assigns,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Superintendent  or  other  officer  in  charge  of  the  Gila 
River  Reservation,  should  have  the  right  to  select  50,000  acres  of 
the  irrigable  lands  of  the  Pima  Indians  on  said  Reservation  and 
to  lease  the  same  for  a  term  of  ten  years.  Elliot  agreed  to  provide, 
at  his  own  expense,  such  wells  as  might  be  needed  to  irrigate  the 
land  so  leased,  and  the  electric  power  necessary  to  operate  them. 

This  land,  when  properly  irrigated,  is,  without  doubt,  the  finest 
cotton-growing  land  in  the  world.  The  rental  specified  by  the 
agreement  to  be  paid  to  the  Indians,  for  the  lands  thus  taken,  is 
that  at  the  expiration  of  the  ten  year  term  specified  by  the  lease, 
if  the  lease  is  not  renewed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  all 
equipment  for  the  transmission  of  electric  power,  motors,  pumps, 
fences,  etc.,  provided  by  the  said  Elliot,  shall  become  the  property 
of  the  Government,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Indians  on  the  Gila 
River  Reservation,  and  that  not  less  than  one-fourth  of  each  tract 
(ten  acres)  in  cultivation  shall,  at  the  expiration  of  the  lease,  be 


left  "in  a  good  stand  of  alfalfa " ;  that  the  owners  of  all  cultivated 
tracts  not  seeded  to  alfalfa  shall  receive  the  equivalent  in  cash  of 
the  cost  of  such  seeding.  As  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs 
has  stated  that  the  cost  of  seeding  the  land  with  "a  good  stand  of 
alfalfa"  is  $5.00  per  acre,  this  means  that,  if  the  Commissioner  is 
correct,  aside  from  having  his  ten  acre  tract  cleared,  leveled  and 
ditched,  all  the  Indian  will  get  out  of  this  lease  is  that  after  re- 
maining without  any  rent  or  other  direct  compensation  for  a 
period  of  ten  years,  he  will  then  receive  the  equivalent  of  $1.25  per 
acre  for  the  lands  leased,  or  said  sum  in  cash, — a  rental  of  twelve 
and  one-half  cents  per  acre  per  annum,  payable  in  kind  or  cash,  at 
the  expiration  of  ten  years,  at  the  option  of  Elliot  or  his  assigns. 

Not  only  so,  but  if  the  Indian  is  for  any  cause  too  blind  or 
ignorant  to  appreciate  the  munificence  of  this  "rental, "  the  Com- 
missioner of  Indian  Affairs  is  anxious  to  assist  him  to  a  decision  in 
favor  of  the  lease.  The  agreement  further  provides  that  after  the 
approval  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  selections  of  lands  made  by 
Elliot,  the  latter  is  thereby  "authorized  to  negotiate  leases  for 
periods  of  ten  years  with  the  respective  Indian  allottees — AND 
THE  SUPERINTENDENT  WILL  RENDER  ALL  POSSIBLE  ASSISTANCE 
IN  so  DOING."  If  the  Indian  fails  to  appreciate  this  generosity, 
then  "THE  SAID  SUPERINTENDENT  is  HEREBY  AUTHORIZED  TO 
SIGN  LEASES  IN  BEHALF  OF  MINORS  AND  UNDETERMINED  HEIRS, 
AND  FOR  SUCH  OTHER  INDIANS  AS  MAY  NOT  BE  PREPARED  TO 
DEVELOP  THEIR  LAND  SUFFICIENTLY  FOR  AGRICULTURAL  PUR- 
POSES AND  WHO  FAIL  OR  REFUSE  TO  EXECUTE  LEASES  COVERING 
SUCH  LANDS."  (The  capitals  in  the  foregoing  quotations  are  our 
own.)  Incidentally,  if  "the  said  superintendent  "should  not  prove 
to  be  sufficiently  pliant  and  use  this  vast  arbitrary  authority  in 
the  interest  of  the  Contractor,  it  might  be  expected  that  influences 
strong  enough  to  secure  the  approval  of  the  agreement  would  be 
able  to  have  him  superseded  by  some  one  who  would  "take 
orders." 

As  if  all  this  was  not  enough,  there  was  an  additional  provision 
that  "if  upon  the  expiration  of  any  leases  made  in  conformity  with 
this  agreement,  it  shall  be  deemed  advisable  by  the  Commissioner 
of  Indian  Affairs  to  again  lease  said  lands  or  any  of  them,  the 
Contractor,  or  his  assigns,  shall  have  the  preference  right  to  renew 
their  leases  thereon  upon  such  terms  and  conditions  as  the  Com- 
missioner of  Indian  Affairs  may  require." 

2 


It  will  be  noted  that  under  this  one-sided  agreement  the  Indian 
is  deprived  of  the  use  of  his  allotment  and  has  to  wait  ten  years 
before  he  receives  any  "rental"  under  the  terms  of  the  original 
lease,  and  that  he  has  no  voice  in  saying  whether  the  lease  shall  be 
renewed.  Under  the  terms  of  this  agreement  the  Commissioner 
of  Indian  Affairs  may  renew  the  leases  for  ninety-nine  years  if  he 
wishes  to  do  so. 

Article  XI  gives  a  further  advantageous  opportunity  to  Mr. 
Elliot,  or  his  assigns,  in  another  direction.  It  provides  "that 
the  Contractor  shall  have  the  right  to  sub-lease  any  of  the  lands 
covered  by  this  agreement  to  satisfactory  tenants  acceptable  to 
the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  upon  terms  not  inconsistent 
with  the  provisions  of  this  agreement." 

Judging  from  what  has  thus  far  happened,  it  is  not  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  any  one  with  sufficient  influence  to  secure  such 
exceptional  consideration  from  the  Indian  Office  as  has  been 
shown  Mr.  Elliot  would  probably  have  little  difficulty  in  getting 
further  concessions  along  this  line  by  which  the  scheme,  instead 
of  being  a  development  project,  might  be  changed  into  a  purely 
speculative  operation.  If  this  were  done,  Elliot  could  reap  a 
large  financial  return  without  any  effort  on  his  part  to  develop 
the  land — which  was  ostensibly  the  main  purpose  of  the  Indian 
Office  in  approving  this  agreement.  Perhaps  this  is  a  matter  of 
more  interest  and  importance  to  Elliot  than  to  the  Pimas,  as  they 
are  to  be  "skinned"  in  any  event,  and  are  obliged,  under  the 
terms  of  the  agreement,  to  wait  for  ten  years,  if  not  forever,  be- 
fore receiving  any  returns,  whether  direct  or  otherwise;  while 
Elliot,  by  sub-leasing,  can  realize  immediately  upon  his  proposi- 
tion without  waiting  through  the  year  for  the  sowing  and  reaping 
of  cotton  crops,  with  all  the  uncertainties  involved  as  to  the 
success  or  failure  of  the  crop  or  fluctuation  in  prices  in  order  to 
reap  the  benefit  of  the  enterprise.  Nothing  could  better  justify 
the  objections  urged  against  the  agreement,  or  more  plainly 
prove  its  real  purpose,  than  such  an  assignment. 

The  Pimas  have  strenuously  objected  to  the  enforcement  of  this 
attempt  to  usurp  their  right  to  control  the  use  of  their  land. 
Happily,  the  law  protects  the  Indian  allottee  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  lands  set  apart  for  his  home. 

Several  years  ago  the  Interior  Department  directed  the  allot- 
ment of  ten  acres  to  each  member  of  the  Pima  tribe  in  the  Gila 


River  Reservation,  and  schedules  for  allotment  followed.  About 
a  year  ago,  and  prior  to  the  execution  of  the  agreement  with  Elliot, 
another  allotment  of  ten  acres  was  ordered,  and  schedules  for  the 
same  are  now  almost  completed. 

The  Indian  right  to  allotted  lands  and  lands  scheduled  fpr 
allotment  is  well  established.  In  Bonifer  v.  Smith  (166,  Fed. 
Rep.,  846-849),  decided  in  1904,  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court  of  Ap- 
peals affirmed  this  right.  In  that  case  the  Indian  Department  has 
denied  the  claim  for  an  allotment  properly  selected  and  scheduled 
for  a  minor  child  who  died  before  the  scheduled  selection  of  land 
was  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  The  Court  said : 

11  When  a  selection  has  been  made  and  the  right  to  an  allot- 
ment has  attached,  the  act  of  the  allotting  commissioners  in 
wrongfully  allotting  the  lands  to  another  cannot  operate  to 
cut  off  the  heir  of  the  person  entitled  to  the  allotment.  The 
right  of  the  heir  depends  not  upon  what  was  done  by  the 
allotting  department,  but  upon  what  ought  to  have  been  done. " 

The  proposed  lease  of  Pima  lands  scheduled  for  allotment  is  in 
contravention  of  the  laws  cited,  since  the  contract  provides  that 
the  lease  for  ten  years  may  be  extended  indefinitely  over  the  pro- 
test of  the  Indian  owner,  thus  defeating  his  title  and  use  of  the 
land  by  indirection.  The  authority  to  lease  indefinitely  is  tan- 
tamount to  voiding  the  title.  We  challenge,  in  law  or  equity,  this 
claim  of  right  by  the  Indian  Department  thus  to  defeat  the  title 
to  lands  allotted  for  homes  of  Indians.  It  follows  from  what  has 
been  said  that  this  agreement  is  confiscatory  as  well  as  uncon- 
scionable. 

Cotton  is  King  in  the  Gila  River  Valley,  and  land  on  which  it 
can  be  raised  commands  a  good  rental,  even  when  in  a  raw  state. 
No  business  man  having  large  tracts  of  such  raw  land  would  con- 
sider any  long  term  lease  on  an  improvement  basis.  In  the  present 
condition  of  the  land  market,  the  best  terms  that  could  be  ob- 
tained was  one  year  free  for  the  first  crop,  and  after  that  an  annual 
rental  of  not  less  than  twenty  dollars  an  acre;  and  even  that 
would  not  be  for  a  term  longer  than  five  years.  We  do  not  believe 
that  such  land  as  the  agreement  proposed  to  turn  over  to  Mr. 
Elliot  could  be  rented  from  a  white  man  the  first  year  for  less 
than  ten  dollars  an  acre;  and  the  value  would  probably  be 
greater  the  succeeding  years.  On  that  basis,  for  the  first  year 

4 


alone,  it  would  be  equivalent  to  making  Mr.  Elliot,  or  his  assigns, 
a  present  of  $500,000  from  the  assets  of  the  Pima  Indians. 

The  cost  of  putting  a  ten  thousand  acre  unit  in  a  crop  con- 
dition— that  is,  raw  land — would  probably  be  about  $100  an 
acre.  It  should  be  noted  that  on  much  of  this  land  there  is  prob- 
ably sufficient  mesquite  wood  which,  if  sold  for  fuel,  would  bring 
in  a  sum  that  would  materially  reduce  this  cost.  Ignoring  this, 
however,  it  can  be  stated  on  the  basis  of  what  has  already  been 
accomplished  in  the  Gila  River  Valley  by  white  ranchmen,  a  unit 
of  ten  thousand  acres,  planted  with  cotton,  under  efficient  man- 
agement and  current  conditions  as  to  cost  of  raising  a  crop  and 
prices  realized,  would  yield  a  return  of  approximately  $200  an 
acre,  or  a  total  of  $2,000,000.  As  the  initial  cost  of  putting  this 
10,000  acres  in  a. crop  condition  would  be  approximately  $1,000,- 
ooo,  the  net  profit  would  therefore  be  $1,000,000  from  ONE  UNIT. 
As  Elliot's  agreement  gives  him  the  right  to  take  over  the  land 
leased  by  him  in  units  of  ten  thousand  acres  each  annually  until 
he  has  absorbed  the  entire  tract,  multiplying  the  above  profit  by 
five  shows  a  profit  of  $10,000,000  per  annum,  which,  upon  a  con- 
servative estimate,  Elliot,  or  his  assigns,  may  reasonably  expect 
to  realize  when  he  has  the  entire  50,000  acres  under  cultivation. 

And  yet  the  agreement  in  question  proposes  to  put  that  fifty 
thousand  acres  of  land  at  the  disposal  of  Mr.  Elliot  for  ten  years, 
for  practically  nothing  but  the  improvements  on  the  land  and  the 
seeding  in  alfalfa  of  two  and  one-half  acres  of  each  allotment,  or 
the  cash  equivalent  of  such  seed  ($12.50),  AND  NOT  ONE  CENT  OF 
THE  PROFITS  is  TO  GO  TO  THE  INDIANS  WHO  OWN  THE  LAND,  and 
who  are  deprived  of  its  use  during  the  period  of  the  lease. 

It  is  astonishing  that  any  one  would  have  sufficient  effrontery 
to  make  such  a  proposition  as  this  Elliot  agreement,  and  more 
amazing  that  it  should  even  be  considered,  much  less  eagerly 
accepted  and  approved,  by  the  Indian  Office,  which  was  created 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  protecting  and  defending  the  Indians  and 
their  resources  from  just  such  attempted  exploitations  as  this. 

For  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  to  negotiate  and  enter 
in  secrecy  into  such  an  agreement,  almost  all  of  the  terms  of 
which  define  and  outline  the  rights  of  Elliot,  or  his  assigns,  and 
the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  and  his  subordi- 
nates to  assist  in  their  enforcement,  few,  if  any,  of  which  terms 
even  suggest  any  rights  for  the  Indian  allottees;  and  for  the 

5 


Commissioner,  further,  to  appear  as  the  chief  advocate  and  de- 
fender of  such  an  unconscionable  and  confiscatory  agreement,  was 
for  him  to  fail  utterly  in  his  duty  as  the  defender  of  these  Indians 
and  the  protector  of  their  rights. 

One  Pima,  Jose  Mendocia,  whose  allotment  is  in  one  of  the 
districts  mentioned  in  the  agreement,  last  year  broke  twelve 
acres  of  his  land,  and  from  his  first  cotton  crop,  after  paying  all 
expenses,  he  cleared  over  $6,000.  He  was  able  to  irrigate  his  field 
with  some  waste  water  out  of  a  canal  that  runs  by  his  place. 
What  he  has  done  other  Pimas  can  and  will  do,  if  they  are  able  to 
get  the  water  that  has  been  promised  them  by  the  Government. 
If  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water  is  furnished  these  Pima  Indians, 
we  believe  that  they  would  have  practically  every  available  acre 
of  land  under  cultivation. 

The  sum  of  $400,000  is  now  available  for  the  construction  of  a 
diversion  dam  across  the  Gila  River,  a  few  miles  above  the  Pima 
Agency.  For  years  these  Indians  have  been  waiting  patiently  and 
anxiously  for  the  construction  of  this  diversion  dam,  and  it  is 
expected  that  sufficient  water  would  thereby  be  made  available  to 
enable  them  to  double  their  present  acreage.  BUT — whoever  pre- 
pared the  Elliot  agreement  may  also  have  had  some  thought  about 
the  possibilities  of  this  diversion  dam,  as  a  clause  in  Article  X 
states  that  "it  is  understood  and  agreed  that  the  Contractor,  his 
assigns  or  lessees  hereunder,  may use  for  irriga- 
tion purposes  on  any  lands  leased  hereunder,  floodwater  from  the 
Gila  River,  when  such  may  be  available,  in  the  discretion  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs."  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that 
much  of  the  land  mentioned  in  the  Elliot  agreement  could  be 
irrigated  from  the  flood  waters  to  be  diverted  by  this  dam.  The 
question  naturally  arises,  is  this  diversion  dam  to  be  constructed 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Pima  Indians,  or  for  the  benefit  of  those  who 
would  exploit  them? 

These  Pima  Indians  have  always  been  industrious  and  self- 
supporting;  and,  moreover,  it  is  their  proud  boast  that  they 
never  made  war  against  the  white  man.  This  is  all  the  more  re- 
markable when  it  is  considered  how  their  water  rights  have  been 
shamelessly  disregarded  by  the  whites,  owing  to  the  failure  of  the 
Government,  in  past  years,  to  act  promptly  and  vigorously  in  the 
premises.  Now,  steps  are  being  taken  to  remedy  that  situation 
by  the  construction  of  this  diversion  dam  and  other  activities; 

6 


BUT — if  such  a  proposition  as  that  carried  by  the  Elliot  agreement 
is  allowed  to  stand,  then  the  poor  Pima  may  again  be  "holding 
the  bag." 

The  Commissioner  states  that  so  long  ago  as  December,  1918, 
he  was  advised  of  the  proposed  contract  to  lease  the  Pima  Lands. 
While  he  may  have  been  considering  the  proposition  long  prior  to 
that  date,  by  his  own  admission  the  matter  was  being  deliberated 
and  confidentially  considered  for  the  twelve  months  following, 
during  all  of  which  time  the  Pima  Indians,  owners  of  the  soil, 
were  kept  in  ignorance  of  the  plan  thus  to  attack  their  title  and  the 
benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  use  of  their  land  for  an  indefinite 
period. 

The  first  knowledge  the  Association  had  of  this  lease  was 
December  22,  1919,  one  month  after  its  execution,  when  a  letter 
was  received  from  the  Pima  reservation  asking  us  to  look  into  the 
matter.  Inquiry  at  the  Indian  Office  brought  the  assuring  answer 
that  the  interests  of  the  Indians  were  fully  protected  and  that  the 
lease  was  a  good  thing. 

Meanwhile,  further  information  was  deemed  desirable,  and  our 
Secretary,  Mr.  Sniffen,  was  directed  to  make  a  first-hand  study 
of  the  matter.  He  reached  the  Pima  reservation  on  January  28, 
1920.  His  investigation  developed  the  facts  as  shown  above  that 
the  land  in  question  was  in  the  heart  of  the  district  where  cotton 
raising  was  no  longer  an  experiment;  that  land  values  (rental  or 
sales)  were  high,  and  that  the  lease  gave  no  adequate  return  to  the 
Indians. 

On  February  4th  a  meeting  of  representative  Pima  Indians  was 
held  at  Sacaton,  at  which  Mr.  Sniffen  was  present  by  invitation. 
Resolutions  condemning  the  lease  were  unanimously  adopted,  and 
the  Indian  Rights  Association  was  asked  by  the  eighty-one  Pimas 
present  to  do  what  it  could  to  block  the  lease. 

Upon  receipt  of  information  from  Mr.  Sniffen  showing  the  real 
scope  of  the  Elliot  agreement,  the  President  of  this  Association  on 
February  I4th  addressed  a  letter  on  the  subject  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  urging  that  he  order  the  withdrawal  of  the 
approval  of  the  said  agreement  by  the  Department  of  the  Interior 
and  its  annulment  by  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs. 

The  Indian  Office  was  on  record  as  stating  that  the  lease  would 
not  be  abrogated.  For  obvious  reasons  Mr.  Sniffen,  under  date  of 
February  7,  1920,  wrote  to  Hon.  Homer  P.  Snyder,  Chairman  of 

7 


the  House  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  calling  attention  to  the 
proposed  exploitation  of  the  Pimas  and  urging  that  his  Com- 
mittee find  a  way  to  thwart  the  scheme.  Mr.  Snyder  was  not  at 
Washington  when  Mr.  Sniffen's  letter  arrived  there,  but  a  copy  of 
it  was  handed  to  Hon.  M.  Clyde  Kelly  of  Pennsylvania,  the  rank- 
ing member  of  the  Indian  Committee. 

On  February  1 7th,  Mr.  Kelly  submitted  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  be,  and  he  is 
hereby,  directed  to  send  forthwith  to  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives all  available  information  in  his  department,  includ- 
ing the  Bureau  of  Indian  Affairs,  with  reference  to  the  pro- 
posed leasing  of  any  of  the  lands  of  the  Gila  River  Indian 
Reservation,  Arizona,  since  January  I,  1919,  including  copy 
of  any  contract  or  agreement  touching  the  same,  and  em- 
bracing a  copy  of  any  contract  or  agreement  made  with  one 
W.  R.  Elliot  of  Phoenix,  Arizona,  whereby,  as  alleged,  fifty 
thousand  acres,  more  or  less,  of  the  lands  of  said  Indian 
reservation  may  be  leased  to  said  Elliot,  together  with  any 
and  all  information  showing  by  what  authority  such  contract 
or  lease  agreement  was  entered  into ;  whether  such  contract 
was  awarded  to  the  highest  bidder  after  due  advertisement 
for  sealed  bids,  or  otherwise  awarded;  and  if  not  so  awarded 
after  submitting  of  sealed  bids  to  state  in  detail  the  course 
which  was  pursued  in  determining  the  rental  value  of  the 
lands,  reciting  the  names  of  any  and  all  persons  who  were 
consulted  in  arriving  at  the  consideration  contained  in  said 
contract  or  lease,  together  with  a  copy  of  all  letters,  state- 
ments, and  other  papers  on  file  in  his  department  relating  in 
any  wise  to  said  contract  of  agreement  of  lease  to  said  Elliot 
or  other  person  or  persons;  to  state  whether  or  not  the 
Indian  owners  of  said  land  were  consulted  so  as  to  ascertain 
their  wishes  in  the  matter ;  and  whether  or  not  the  proposed 
contract  or  matter  of  leasing  said  lands  was  first  submitted  to 
the  superintendent  in  charge  of  said  Gila  River  Indian  Reser- 
vation for  report  upon  the  advisability  of  negotiating  such 
lease  to  W.  R.  Elliot  or  other  person." 

On  February  27,  1920,  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs 
wrote  a  lengthy  and  elaborate  defence  to  Chairman  Snyder, 
abounding  in  fallacies  and  sophistries  in  which  he  seeks  to  justify 
the  action  of  the  Indian  Office  in  approving  the  Elliot  agreement. 
He  ignored  the  various  clauses  in  the  Resolution  calling  for  in- 
formation regarding  some  very  vital  points.  Apparently  the 

8 


Indian  Office  preferred  to  dodge  an  explanation  of  why  no  bids 
were  received  from  other  parties,  why  the  Pima  Indians  were  kept 
in  ignorance  of  the  proposition  during  the  year  it  was  under  con- 
sideration, and  why  Elliot  should  have  been  so  signally  favored. 
In  a  section  where  cotton  raising  is  beyond  the  experimental 
stage,  and  even  raw  land  is  at  a  premium,  it  is  unbelievable  that 
it  was  impossible  to  find  men  not  only  willing,  but  anxious,  to 
secure  any  tracts  that  were  available. 

On  March  lyth,  at  a  meeting  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Indian  Affairs,  Mr.  Kelly  referred  to  his  resolution  and  urged 
that  it  be  considered  three  days  later.  Up  to  this  moment  the 
Indian  Office  had  endeavored  to  uphold  the  agreement.  When, 
however,  Mr.  Kelly  indicated  a  determination  to  press  his  resolu- 
tion, the  Indian  Office  capitulated.  Assistant  Commissioner 
Meritt,  who  was  present  at  the  March  iyth  meeting,  then  stated 
that  the  Indian  Bureau  would  not  make  any  other  effort  to  lease 
the  Pima  lands  without  first  apprising  the  Committee  of  its  pro- 
posed action.  It  was  therefore  deemed  unnecessary  to  further 
consider  the  Kelly  Resolution.  Mr.  Meritt's  statement  was 
accepted  with  the  understanding  that  before  any  lease  was  ap- 
proved it  would  be  submitted  to  the  House  Indian  Committee  in 
order  that  any  objections  thereto  could  be  heard. 

The  action  of  the  Interior  Department  in  fathering  this  agree- 
ment was  indefensible  and  cannot  be  justified  in  the  light  of  day, 
when  all  the  existing  conditions  as  to  land  values  and  crop  possi- 
bilities are  understood,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  any 
attempts  on  the  part  of  any  official  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, or  any  individual,  other  than  the  Indians  themselves,  to 
lease  allotted  lands  of  Indians,  or  lands  scheduled  for  allotment, 
is  absolutely  illegal  and  utterly  void. 

As  a  result  of  the  vigorous  protests  of  the  Indian  Rights  Asso- 
ciation, and  others,  the  Elliot  agreement  has  been  suspended,  for 
the  time  being.  It  ought  to  be  buried  so  deep  that  its  resurrection 
is  impossible.  The  stake  is  a  large  one,  however,  and  the  interests 
behind  the  scheme  are  powerful. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Meritt's  statement  to  the  House  Com- 
mittee, the  Pimas  are  far  from  being  reassured,  which  is  not  sur- 
prising in  view  of  the  treatment  they  have  received  from  the 
Indian  Office.  Rumor  will  riot  down  that  an  effort  is  to  be  made 
to  revive  this  objectionable  agreement  when  the  time  to  do  so 

9 


seems  opportune.  The  friends  of  the  Pimas  must  therefore  be 
alert,  and  ready  to  take  any  proper  steps  necessary,  legal  or  other- 
wise, to  prevent  their  exploitation. 

WM.  ALEXANDER  BROWN, 

V T ice-President  and  Chairman  Law  Committee. 

M.  K.  SNIFFEN, 
Secretary  I.  R.  A. 

May  I  add  a  word  in  conclusion  to  the  foregoing  statements 
bearing  upon  the  Pima  lease  case?  I,  as  President  of  the  Associa- 
tion and  a  worker  during  so  many  years  past  for  Indian  rights, 
have  been  deeply  impressed,  and  on  the  whole  cheered,  by  the 
outcome.  We  have  won  a  notable  victory  in  forcing  the  Indian 
Bureau — we  regret  to  be  obliged  to  use  that  harsh  term — to  aban- 
don its  support  of  this  measure.  This  happy  result  was  reached 
by  a  combination  of  forces  in  which  the  good  work  of  our  Wash- 
ington Agent,  Mr.  Brosius,  the  powerful  appeal  of  Mr.  Sniffen 
from  the  West;  the  indefatigable  labors  of  Mr.  Wm.  Alexander 
Brown  here  in  Philadelphia,  and  above  all,  the  quick  and  gen- 
erous support  of  many  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  bore  a 
prominent  part.  The  victory  has  been  won  by  public  sentiment, 
properly  organized  and  quickly  expressed  in  condemnation  of  a 
measure  which,  had  it  succeeded,  would  have  inflicted  a  cruel 
wrong  upon  an  innocent  and  deserving  body  of  Indians.  This 
cheering  success — tentative  and  incomplete  as  it  is — should 
stimulate  the  entire  society  to  go  forward  in  its  broad  and  nec- 
essary work  of  demanding  and  effecting  a'  complete  reform  in  the 
lamentable  deficiencies  of  the  Indian  service.  It  should  inspire 
every  member  of  the  Association  with  redoubled  zeal  and  bring 
within  the  limits  of  our  membership  a  much  larger  number  of 
good  men  and  women  than  we  now  have. 

HERBERT  WELSH, 

President  I.  R.  A. 
Washington  Office: 
S.  M.  BROSIUS,  Agent, 
McGill  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 


10 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


